FY 2000 proposal 20097
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Phalon Lake Wild Rainbow Trap Improvements and O&M |
| Proposal ID | 20097 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Curt Vail |
| Mailing address | 1073 Starvation Lk. Rd. Colville, WA 99114 |
| Phone / email | 5096845742 / cvail@plix.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Inter-Mountain / Columbia Upper |
| Short description | Construct a permanent trapping and spawning facility and produce 500,000+ wild rainbow annually |
| Target species | Indigenous redband rainbow trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 1996 |
Produced 26,000 redband fisngerlings for Kettle River Project. |
| 1997 |
Produced 26,000 redband fingerlings for Kettle River Project. |
| 1998 |
Produced 26,000 redband fisngerlings for Kettle River Project. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 9104600 |
Spokane Tribal Hatchery O&M |
Resident fish production |
| 9104700 |
Sherman Cr. Hatchery O&M |
Resident fish production |
| 9404300 |
Lake Roosevelt Monitoring/Data Collection |
Resident fish evaluation |
| 9500900 |
Lake Roosevelt rainbow trout net pens |
Resident fish production |
| 9500100 |
Kalispel resident fish project |
Native species and habitat status evaluation |
| 9001800 |
Evaluate habitat and passage improvements of tributaries to Lake Roosevelt |
Native species habitat evaluation |
| 9700400 |
Resident fish stock status above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams |
Information exchange/Blocked area coordination |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$0 |
| Fringe |
|
$0 |
| Supplies |
|
$0 |
| NEPA |
|
$5,000 |
| Construction |
Engineering and design |
$20,000 |
| $25,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $25,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $25,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Installation of power to the site will be at the discretion of WWP. Engineering and design completion will determine start time of actual construction.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Delay Funding
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Delay funding until proposers justify why they are using a single source of fish for stocking and address potential consequences of this on the genetic characteristics of native populations. Encourage resubmission in another year. As a set, the Roosevelt Lake hatchery proposals need to address and monitor potential impacts on native biota.
Comments:
This is a new proposal to take over a trap facility for obtaining spawning stock of rainbow trout. This proposal would replace hatchery rainbow trout with resident redband trout. Although the group liked the idea of replacing stocking of coastal rainbow trout with local redband rainbow trout, the proposal should consider the potential negative effects of using a single source of fish for stocking on the genetic characteristics of native populations. If substantial genetic differences exist among the local stocks of native redband, then stocking a single source of fish could 'genetically homogenize' the native populations, possibly reducing productivity and population viability.
Aside from the objection above, this is a well-prepared, new project proposal. It is related to the FWP and three other plans. The proposal specifically relates the work to seven other BPA-funded production and evaluation projects for the area (suggesting the need for an umbrella proposal. This project would provide wild stock for hatcheries, replacing other stocks. It has significant shared costs ($25K of $150K). There would be obligations for construction and operation in the future, however. There is a good background and rationale for the use of native trout in supplementation. There is construction as well as O&M. The exact facility and equipment is left unclear.
There is confusion about funding history. The project seems to have been ongoing since 1996, but the proposal presents no project history. It is related to a project that will monitor these fish, but what about monitoring the impact on other fish? There is no explanation of why and how they will increase from $26k to $500k. Of this set of Roosevelt Lake hatchery proposals, it is good that this project proposes to use native stock. This is a direction that the other projects need to pursue. However, the use of just one source is questionable for maintenance of native stocks. There is a weakly justified budget with little cross-correlation between objectives and costs. A better description of prior funding is needed, here or in an umbrella proposal.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Screening Criteria: yesTechnical Criteria: no-There is no scientific documentation for the stated problem. We are concerned about cost effectiveness.
Programmatic Criteria: yes
Milestone Criteria: no- The milestones are production criteria and the measurable objectives and milestones should be directed at the fishery.
General Comment: This is an application of three step process. The projects appear to be costly.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];